MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2167404271 · doi:10.1136/ebm.13.3.81

Review: multiple doses of antenatal corticosteroids prevent preterm neonatal respiratory disease more than a single dose

2008· letter· en· W2167404271 on OpenAlexaffabout
Peter von Dadelszen

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Medicine · 2008
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRespiratory systemPediatricsDiseaseIntensive care medicineObstetricsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ED FROM Crowther CA, Harding JE. Repeat doses of prenatal corticosteroids for women at risk of preterm birth for preventing neonatal respiratory disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;(3):CD003935. Correspondence to: Dr C Crowther, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia; caroline.crowther@adelaide.edu.au Source of funding: Australian Department of Health and Aging. c Clinical impact ratings: Obstetrics 7/7; GP/FP/Obstetrics 6/7; Paediatrics 6/7; Paediatric neonatology 6/7 Repeat dose(s) of antenatal corticosteroids (ACSs) v placebo after the first dose to prevent neonatal morbidity in women still at risk of preterm delivery >7 days after a first dose* Weighted event rates Outcomes Number of trials (n) Repeat ACSs Placebo RRR (95% CI) NNT (CI) Respiratory distress syndrome 4 (2155) 26% 32% 18% (7 to 28) 18 (12 to 45) Severe lung disease 3 (2139) 10% 17% 40% (25 to 52) 15 (12 to 24) Serious infant morbidity{ 4 (2157) 18% 23% 21% (7 to 33) 22 (14 to 64) *Abbreviations defined in glossary; weighted event rates, RRR, NNT, and CI calculated from data in article using a fixed-effects model. {Composite outcome, variously defined. C O M M EN TA R Y T he advisability of repeat courses of ACSs for women at ongoing risk of preterm birth at ,34 weeks’ gestation has been queried since Liggins and Howie showed that ACSs provided survival and respiratory benefit over placebo. That trial, and subsequent RCTs and meta-analyses, supported the use of ACSs, but it was immediately clear that its benefits were time-limited. Why? Type II pneumocytes are irreversibly induced to produce surfactant by ACSs; however, ACSs are administered during a phase of exponential pulmonary growth and production of new, and presumably immature, alveoli. An initial wave of enthusiasm for repeat courses was tempered by concerns raised by animal and casecontrol studies about adverse effects on neurodevelopment and fetal growth. In this important meta-analysis, Crowther and Harding reviewed the findings of 5 recent, highquality, placebo controlled RCTs, all of which administered repeat courses of ACSs weekly. The primary findings were that treatment with repeat dose(s) of ACSs was associated with reductions in respiratory distress syndrome, severe lung disease, and serious infant morbidity. The direction of effect towards benefit was similar across RCTs. However, these benefits occurred at the expense of a mild reduction in fetal growth velocity and an increased risk of birth by caesarean section. The recently completed Multiple Courses of Antenatal Steroids for Preterm Birth Study (MACS), which randomised women to receive repeat doses of ACSs or placebo at 14-day intervals, was not included in the review. Preliminary results showed equivalent composite perinatal morbidity and mortality between groups and reduced fetal growth velocity in the repeat ACSs group. Accumulating paediatric follow-up from this and other trials will provide additional information for clinical decision-making. In the meantime, a pragmatic response to current evidence may be to reserve repeat doses of ACSs for women who have remained pregnant for .1 week but are now being considered for delivery in the next 2 days. Peter von Dadelszen, MBChB, DPhil University of British Columbia Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada 1. Liggins GC, Howie RN. Pediatrics 1972;50:515–25. 2. Murphy K, MACS Collaborative Group. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007;197(Suppl 1):S2. Therapeutics EBM June 2008 Vol 13 No 3 81 on 17 July 2008 ebm.bmj.com Downloaded from

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.004
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.144
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based Medicine→Same topicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research→French-language works237,207→